Once, Twice, Three times a Daily

[Lwaxy]

The problem (for me) is that I HATE this. In play it always feels like the GM is trying to bait you into using your ability before the big fight and hence such abilities either go entirely unused or are never there when you need them 'cause you wasted it in the last room on what turned out to be a kobold illusionist pretending to be a Balor.

We usually allow any of those "daiies" to be used more than intended, determined by dice. If you have used up your guaranteed user of said ability, you roll against a DC that goes lower as your level/skill increases. If you miss the roll, you can't do anymore of them, if you don't, keep on rolling until you do.

There is a limit with this for the more useful of those abilities, but speak with animals or plants? I don't mind if that's unlimited.

 

[1Mac]

I agree with the OP.

I, too, would like to get rid of most dailies (except for Vancian magic)...

I hate use per time abilities. I think they're a crutch for designers and I'd be happy to see them 100% gone. Vancian magic, however, is a D&D classic and has its charm.

I can't wrap my head around this position at all. If a daily power is bad when it appears in the Special Abilities column, it's still bad if it appears in the Spell Per Day Column.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I can't wrap my head around this position at all. If a daily power is bad when it appears in the Special Abilities column, it's still bad if it appears in the Spell Per Day Column.

True. But it's "classic", it's part of the D&D experience at this point. If I were building an FRPG from scratch, I would not do anything remotely similar to Vancian magic. As it is, we need to have Vancian magic, but at-will (warlock) or spell point systems (where spell points can be regenerated at a variety of rates) or any number of other systems should be considered.

What I'm talking about is two wrongs not making a right. If use per day magic is bad, giving barbarians per-day rages expands the problem, let alone the ToB nightmare.

There's also the plausibility issue. "It's magic" covers a lot of things, but a barbarian complaining that he can't rage is not one of them.

 

[dkyle]

True. But it's "classic", it's part of the D&D experience at this point. If I were building an FRPG from scratch, I would not do anything remotely similar to Vancian magic. As it is, we need to have Vancian magic, but at-will (warlock) or spell point systems (where spell points can be regenerated at a variety of rates) or any number of other systems should be considered.

What I'm talking about is two wrongs not making a right. If use per day magic is bad, giving barbarians per-day rages expands the problem, let alone the ToB nightmare.

There's also the plausibility issue. "It's magic" covers a lot of things, but a barbarian complaining that he can't rage is not one of them.

I essentially agree with this, even if I'd rather get rid of that "wrong", period, no matter how "classic" it is. I'm hoping that Vancian casting will be limited to Wizards, and that the rest of the system will not be strongly "per day" based. That way, I can just pretend Wizards don't exist, and I'll maybe end up with a good system.

But "per day" abilities in general are almost as "classic" as Vancian magic, so my hopes aren't very high that we'll be getting better designs for the other classes. I think it's telling that every option in that Vancian casting article's poll, besides the AEDU option, was a per-day system. What Monte calls a different magic system, separate from Vancian (the Sorcerer's "flexible" casting), I call a system that's basically indistinguishable from Vancian in all the ways I actually care about. Even "power points" don't mean much to me as long as they're still a Daily resource.

 

[Dausuul]

For my own part, I would be quite happy to see Vancian magic disappear forever. It's too much of a sacred cow to get rid of, though, especially in the "unification edition." So I'm resigned to having Vancian wizards in 5E. I don't really mind as long as I have a non-Vancian caster option.

But I don't want per-day limits for any class that isn't upholding four decades of tradition.

 

[1Mac]

True. But it's "classic", it's part of the D&D experience at this point. If I were building an FRPG from scratch, I would not do anything remotely similar to Vancian magic. As it is, we need to have Vancian magic...

I grudgingly accept that this sort of thinking will win out, but I disagree with it strenuously. THAC0 is also "classic", but 3e had no problem jettisoning it. Unlike wine, a bad design doesn't improve with age, and if Monte Cook weren't in love with Vancian spells, I think Vancian casting would go the way of to-hit tables.

What I'm talking about is two wrongs not making a right. If use per day magic is bad, giving barbarians per-day rages expands the problem, let alone the ToB nightmare.

Definitely. "D" is my least favorite part of "AEDU". I like the conditional and time management triggers that Herman the Wise describes upthread. I just dispute that we need any sort of "wrong" at all.

There's also the plausibility issue. "It's magic" covers a lot of things, but a barbarian complaining that he can't rage is not one of them.

If we accept the second quoted bit above as true, then it's a non-issue, but on its own I don't buy this. If we built the barbarian like a sorcerer, it's perfectly logical: the barbarian can "execute" any of his "maneuvers known" at any time, but he only has so much "stamina" that he can spend before he needs to rest. A "Vancian combatant" would of course be pointlessly baroque, but so are Vancian casters.

 

[Dausuul]

I grudgingly accept that this sort of thinking will win out, but I disagree with it strenuously. THAC0 is also "classic", but 3e had no problem jettisoning it. Unlike wine, a bad design doesn't improve with age, and if Monte Cook weren't in love with Vancian spells, I think Vancian casting would go the way of to-hit tables.

THAC0 was never "classic." It existed in 2E only. How you calculate chance to hit has changed with every single edition: 1E and BD&D had to-hit tables, 2E had THAC0, 3E had BAB, and 4E had the unified level modifier. Vancian casting has been present for four decades, in every edition of D&D that's ever been printed. Even 4E had it, although it occupied a different space in the game.

I don't like Vancian, neither does anyone in my group, and if 5E were being made just for us, Vancian casting would be gone. But when you get right down to it, whether it's good design or bad, lots of people want Vancian. WotC should give it to them. The rest of us can just pretend those pages of the PHB are blank.

 

[1Mac]

THAC0 was never "classic." It existed in 2E only.

Fair enough; please pardon my ignorance on that score. Am I right, though, that rolling below the target number (2e AC being an example) was the goal of DnD until 3e came along? Point being, I'm sure we could find lots of sacred cows that 3e slew for the greater good.

 

[JohnSnow]

Fair enough; please pardon my ignorance on that score. Am I right, though, that rolling below the target number (2e AC being an example) was the goal of DnD until 3e came along? Point being, I'm sure we could find lots of sacred cows that 3e slew for the greater good.

There's a very big difference between sacred cows that have been done away with by changing the way the system's math works (the classic 5 Saving Throws, or descending AC, for example) and those which represent something fundamental about D&D. Most of what gets changed from edition to edition is something fiddly - like how skills work, or which (non-core) classes are in the game, or how a particular spell works.

For instance, Dungeons & Dragons has never had a well-defined skill system, so creating one (and fiddling with it) doesn't do away with any sacred cows. By contrast, Vancian magic ranks right up there with the arcane/divine magic divide as sacred cows go. Sure, both are pretty idiosyncratic to D&D and D&D only (although some elements have been widely adopted in other pop culture due to D&D's influence), but that's also why they're iconic TO D&D - "sacred cows," if you will. And like the 6 attributes, like AC & Hit Points, like rolling for initiative, like the d20 to attack, like rolling for damage, and like the class-based character creation, it just wouldn't have that "D&D feel" for a large number of people if you take them out.

Personally, I would happily ditch both Vancian spellcasting and the arcane/divine magic divide in favor of a more universal system that was less D&D flavor-specific. But I know that can be, at best, an option, because to some, Vancian spellcasting and the arcane/divine magic divide are true "sacred cows" - NECESSARY components for maintaining that "D&D feel" for a large number of people.

 

[billd91]

I don't have a problem with daily pools of some kind. I don't mind a barbarian getting a limited number of rounds of rage a day in PF. He's got a pool he can spend with a lot control so the burden of picking the right moment isn't onerous. Also, it makes a certain amount of sense that he's going to run out of gas at some point until he gets a night's rest. By a similar token, I don't have a problem with most spell point/psionic power/Vancian slots casting system. The character runs out of gas at some point and can't work his mojo any more without sleep.

But there are some kinds of daily powers I'm not so keen on. 4e martial dailies I don't like. Why is it I can achieve this level of success only once a day? I can call on it whenever I want but I then I can't do it again, though I might be able to call on some other daily effect? I'd rather have a non-specific, fungible daily pool - maybe I can achieve 3 daily level results before I'm too tired to do it again, but I can choose the specific mix as befits the situations I'm in. I'm much more agreeable to that.

The other issue I have with dailies are best displayed by the low level 3e paladin. His daily smite power was just too weak, too unreliable, too brief. PF improved it substantially by having it last until the selected enemy was defeated. You could declare a smite in the morning, lose the escaping target, and then have it still in effect when you caught up with him at twilight (assuming you didn't get a smite on someone else in the meantime). That version I like. Daily could be a short time, true, but it could also last all day. In any event, it meant declaring a special significant fight against a specific target. And narratively that makes up for a lot when it comes to a once a day effect.